Friday, January 9, 2015

The Magic Mountain: Chapter 1

Well, everyone has had a full week now to acquire a copy of Thomas Mann's novel The Magic Mountain and to read the first chapter. While I am quite certain that everyone has done so, if for some strange reason you haven't gotten around to it, you need not panic. There is ample time to purchase the book or pick it up at your local library over the weekend. The first chapter is quite short, and I won't be taking up the second chapter until next Friday, so you will have a full week to catch up if you need to. (I realize that some of you may have other business to attend to, and I am in no way impatient.)

But for everybody else, let's just go ahead and jump right into the narrative, shall we? Splendid!

Foreward

Mann’s very brief Foreward to The Magic Mountain seems essential primarily because he wants to clearly distinguish his story as belonging to the past. And he stresses that even though it occurred in a not-long-ago past, its "pastness" is ineradicably important, simply because it occurred before World War I. From Mann’s perspective, the time before and after The Great War are so radically different that they cannot be equated in any way. We know that Mann began his novel before the war, then radically expanded and changed it during and after the long conflict.

The author is in no way specific about how times have changed since the war - to him and to his European (especially German) readership in 1924, the transformation of life and the attitudes toward virtually everything must be too palpably obvious and ubiquitous to bother going into giving specifics. Primarily, however, we sense and may assume that one of the chief differences is the loss of a general state of innocence and naivete. Long-held ideals and assumptions about life in general and Western civilization in particular undoubtedly seemed simpler and more clear-cut before the great conflagration than they could ever be afterward. And this simplicity is clearly meant to be indelibly personified by the hero of the novel, Hans Castorp.

Mann describes Hans Castorp as "a perfectly ordinary, if engaging young man." It is in fact his very "ordinariness" that will allow Hans to be our surrogate guide through the world of The Magic Mountain. Mann stresses that this is "his" story, and indeed everything we encounter in the book will be filtered through Hans’ experience of it and his reactions to it. This is absolutely essential for the dynamic of the novel to have its desired effect. For The Magic Mountain is ultimately a bildungsroman, or a novel of education. Yet at the same time, through its ironic tone, it is also a parody of a traditional bildungsroman, and we will have to maintain some critical distance from Hans throughout the novel. In short, we must not only experience and learn everything that Hans Castorp does, and understand it in his terms - we must also be able to simultaneously keep ourselves separate and distinct from the "perfectly ordinary young man" and constantly make judgments as to whether we agree or disagree with him. This will prove to be no easy matter.

Nor will the commentary of the narrator be of much assistance to us. Mann’s high-styled narration has an obvious mocking tone, and it is clear that its chief purpose is to deliver a careful distance of irony. We will never be able to trust the narrator as to the ultimate judgment of Hans or his adventures, so we will constantly be tossed back and forth between the two - Hans Castorp and the narrator - in a perpetual state of ambiguity. We will be continually in the very difficult position of having to make our own independent interpretation and evaluation of thought, action and event which our hero encounters.

It is this narrative scheme that makes The Magic Mountain such a notoriously difficult book. Unlike many other modernist masterpieces, it is a not a difficult book to read. But it is tremendously challenging to understand. While some high modernist writers, such as James Joyce, T.S. Eliot and William Faulkner, will oftentimes adopt a style that is quite obscure even on a literal level, Mann’s narration seems relatively straight-forward. While the author does not resort to obfuscation on a primary level, it is by no means clear precisely what his views and intentions are in presenting the material he chooses to narrate. Ultimately, the challenge of reading The Magic Mountain is basically the same challenge that the "ordinary" post-War citizen of the Western world - and especially the post-War German - faces in real life.

Even more that most modern novels, The Magic Mountain is quite self-consciously allegorical in nature. The mountain sanatorium quite obviously represents a microcosm of pre-War Europe, among many other things. Hans Castorp is not only an "ordinary" Everyman making his way through a strange and confusing environment. Mann also clearly wishes to present him as a personification of his own contemporary Germany and the choices it must face in the modern world - both politically and culturally.

Indeed, in a very large sense, we can take the author at his word in the Foreward that the story is very much akin to "a fairy tale." And since fairly tales are basically myths using archetypal characters and situations for us to interpret on a deeper level and a larger scale, we know right away the kind of thinking that is going to be required of us to appreciate the "story" in any meaningful sense. Mann indeed, labelled his mountain as "magic" for some very good reasons.


Chapter 1

In keeping with his conceptualization of the novel as an allegory or "fairy tale," Mann continually utilized devices such as the Wagnerian "leitmotif" to help enhance this sensibility. A "leitmotif" is a short, constantly recurring musical phrase associated with a particular person, place or idea. The great German composer Richard Wagner used them to help structure and organize his operas, and Mann follows the composer’s method here, giving The Magic Mountain a notably "musical" quality." One of the many leitmotifs he employs is the use of the number "seven," which the narrator declares in the course of the novel to be a "significantly satisfying number," and indeed the book is divided into seven chapters, some of much greater length than others. In fact, the length of the chapters themselves have corollaries to the experience of the main character’s experience of time itself, which is another of the novel’s great leitmotifs. Indeed, there are points in The Magic Mountain where the book seems to be completely swallowed by the notion of time itself.

The first chapter is relatively short, however, in keeping with "real time," as it chronicles the arrival of Hans Castorp to the Berghof Sanatorium high in the Swiss Alps and records his initial impressions of the environment. In short, this is an "introductory chapter," and it serves to both set the scene as well as the tone of the book, was well as making acquaintance of some of the major themes that will be developed in the course of the long novel.

Each chapter is sub-divided into various "sections," each with a title heading, and we will discuss each of these separately. The first chapter has but three sections, and they each follow a natural part of a single developing narrative.


Arrival
 


"An ordinary young man was on his way from his hometown of Hamburg to Davos-Platz in the canton of Graubunden. It was the height of summer, and he planned to stay for three weeks." Thus, in such a simple and humble fashion opens one of the most monumental and challenging epics of modern literature. Hans Castorp, our hero, is the "ordinary young man," and we eventually come to see that he is indeed both "ordinary," yet at the same time "extraordinary." That is, he is simple and unformed, somewhat of a blank slate - yet he will eventually emerge with a remarkable proclivity for learning, growth and careful discernment. He will be subject to every physical and metaphysical temptation known to man, and he will continually grow through his remarkable ordeal. Whether he will ultimately end up a better man than when he arrived is something that will be up to the reader to determine.

Mann is careful to describe Hans Castorp’s journey in such a way that the reader gets a very tangible sense of moving far away, to a distant place of a definite type of "otherness." As Hans slowly climbs high up into the Swiss Alps on a narrow gauge train, he becomes acutely aware of the great distance he has traveled and marvels at the unusual, changing mountain scenery. One has a sense that he is quite definitely moving far away from his old life and entering a completely new world. This is absolutely necessary for the effect that Mann wishes to convey. Hans Castorp is not merely visiting a new place - he is entering a mythical world, far removed from his ordinary life below.

When he finally reaches the top of the line, his cousin, Joachim Ziemssen is there to meet him at the station. Joachim is also a young man, about Hans’ age, and though they come from the same home and background, we will come to see that there are very distinct differences between the two. Joachim has an ambition to be a soldier, hopefully an officer, and much to his chagrin, his career has been temporarily put on hold by a mild case of tuberculosis that he is waiting to be cured by his stay at the Berghof Sanitorium. He has already been up at the institute for nearly six months.

As he looks quite healthy, Hans quickly assumes that Joachim is cured and will be returning home with him in three weeks. Not only does Joachim disabuse Hans of this notion - his seeming health is only the result of a tan - he announces that the director of the sanitorium has just added six more months to his stay. Hans is incredulous at this, insisting that at their age that they should be quick to act, remarking, "We don’t have that much time in life!"

Joachim can merely shrug - which he does in a manner that disturbs Hans, as its weary nonchalance does not match with the character of his cousin. Little does young Castorp realize how much spending time at the sanatorium changes a person. Joachim tells him that time is different "for us up here," and that "three weeks are almost nothing for us." He adds, casually, "A man changes a lot of his ideas here."

This last line is probably the greatest understatement in the entire book. As we shall see, Hans Castorp will transform into almost a completely different person as we join him at his long seven-year stay at the Berghof. It is important that we grasp him in his "natural state" at his arrival, and note how truly ordinary he really is, due to the simplicity of his life back home. Hans is a petit-bourgeois young German, about to embark on a very practical career. He carries with him a copy of a book entitled Ocean Steamships, and it is quite obvious that he has never examined his assumptions about life in any detail whatsoever.

Hans is mildly shocked and disturbed to see the resignation in his cousin, and he dislikes it when he continually refers to the people at the sanatorium as "us," implying a marked distinction between the people up on the mountain and those down below. Little does Hans realize how much is really implied by this statement, and Mann will be very deliberate and careful in showing us Hans Castorp’s transition over time to his joining the ranks of those "up here."

Still, Hans is happy to see his cousin, he’s pleased to be in a new place, and he’s admiring the scenery and the fresh mountain air. On their buggy ride to the sanatorium, Joachim calmly informs Hans that during the winter, a neighboring sanatorium uses bobsleds to transport the "bodies" down the mountain. At first, Hans does not grasp what he means, but once he realizes it, he is so shocked that he bursts out laughing. He accuses Joachim of having become a cynic. He is told that the director of the sanatorium - a Dr. Behrens - is also a cynic. And Joachim adds that his assistant - Dr. Krokowski - "dissects the patients’ psyches."

Hans Castorp finds all of this information frankly incredible, and he begins laughing so hard he can hardly control himself. It is a beautiful scene of innocence, and we should keep it mind throughout the book. For as we spend more and more time with Hans on the magic mountain, we become more and more like he becomes, unbelievably ready to accept the most preposterous situations and absurdities as if they were absolutely normal. This is our arrival, as well as Hans’, and for a time, we shall still be able to think discriminately, like him - like the outsiders that we are.


Room 34

Hans Castorp’s room number at the Berghof Sanatorium is 34. If you add three and four, you get seven, a "magical" number that will represent the fairy-tale "otherness" of the institution throughout the book. Joachim’s room is next-door, and Hans becomes incredulous when his cousin tells him that he and all the other patients sit outside on their balconies for two hours every evening for their "rest cure," no matter what the weather. It is important to note that the neophyte from the "lower world" finds so many customs of the mountain to be ludicrous upon his arrival, as he will eventually accept all these strange novelties over time as "normal."

On the other hand, Hans does not react strongly when Joachim informs him that a woman patient died in his room - in his bed - two days before. If this seems strange, it is because, as we shall soon learn, that Hans’ life has been strongly influenced by death, so that he has a more casual acceptance of it than most people. As a matter of fact, he has a rather shallow and "romanticized" view of it, and this will affect many of his reactions at the Berghof.

As they are leaving for dinner, however, Hans hears a cough from an adjoining room that is so thick and vile that he becomes unnerved. Joachim tells him that the cough comes from "an Austrian aristocrat" who is close to death. Hans is not so familiar, or comfortable with, serious illness, and he feels quite sickened.

Disease at the Berghof is, among many other things, a metaphor for the corruption and rot of European society before World War I, which Mann, I believe, thinks will make the coming conflict inevitable. Seen in this light, it is appropriate that Hans’ first encounter with illness is with an "Austrian aristocrat" - as the crumbling Austro-Hungarian Empire (and aristocracy in general), is seen as an outmoded, reactionary power, coming into conflict with modern political and economic forces emerging in Europe.

We must note, however, that even as Hans has such strong initial reactions to the strange things at the sanatorium, he complains of coldness and his face is hot and flushed - he is already beginning to fall into sickness himself without his realizing it.

In the Restaurant 
 
The cousins have missed the evening meal, so they adjourn to the sanitorium’s restaurant to enjoy a fine dinner and a bottle of wine. The restaurant seems to represent kind of a halfway-house between the Berghof world and the ordinary world below, and as Joachim drinks his Bordeaux and chats with Hans, he visibly cheers up and becomes more like himself momentarily. He tells Hans about some of the patients up there, saying that they are gossips. One lady in particular, one Frau Stohr, is annoyingly silly and mis-pronounces all sorts of words and phrases. This is a little preview of the ridiculous assortment of patients that Hans (and we) shall come to know up there in the rarefied mountain air - stupid, petty, shallow and pretentious, they represent the general society of pre-War Europe.

Hans begins to tell Joachim about an "epoch-making" plan to improve navigation back home, and despite his genuine lowland enthusiasm, he keeps returning with greater and greater curiosity about the Berghof. He is already beginning to be seduced by the lure of the place, plus his head is getting hotter and he is becoming extremely drowsy (plus a little drunk).

On their way back to their rooms, they encounter Dr. Krokowski in the lobby. Joachim introduces his cousin to the short, bearded Polish psychoanalyst, who presumes that Hans is a new patient. Hans assures the doctor that he is merely a visitor, and that he is perfectly healthy. Krokowski responds sarcastically by saying that he has "never met a perfectly healthy person before." This strange statement is not only quite telling about the general attitude of the medical staff up here, but it prefigures certain experiences that Hans will be having not only with this doctor, but in general, during his stay.

As Hans sinks off to sleep, he is momentarily reminded that a woman just recently died in the bed he is in, but he manages to brush off any creepy discomfort. His night is filled with disturbing dreams, however, as he envisions Joachim, along with the Austrian aristocrat with the horrible cough, riding down the bobsled course together, an obvious premonition of death.

Thus, we have in the course of the short first chapter a clear portrait of the young Hans Castorp and his arrival at the Berghof Sanitorium. The basic scene is set, and we are ready for the course of the novel to begin. It is clear that the "mountain" is truly an abnormal place and that its ways seem strange to an outsider. It will indeed prove to be "magical" as it is already beginning to cast its "spell" on our hero. This brief sketch is not simply an introduction - it is the beginning of an initiation: one that will continue to grow each day Hans Castorp spends at the institution.

But we will have to wait a bit to experience the second day’s effects. For in the second chapter, Mann decides to briefly interrupt his narrative and backtrack a bit, giving the reader a bit more crucial information about the protagonist. For no one arrives at any new destination without carrying a bit of baggage.


Coming Soon: Chapter 2
- petey

Please feel free to make comments and
remember: make any submissions you like,
literary or otherwise, to:

peteywest@yahoo.com



 

Wednesday, January 7, 2015

wig out at jagbags

2014 in music

Thank God for Spotify! I listened to more new music in 2014 than probably any year since the 1970s. And my conclusion is? First of all, there's too much of it. One can't really take it all in. But the upside of that equation is that there is probably more truly interesting, exciting and fun acts producing popular music than any time in history. There's simply no center or focus, nothing that would pull a generation (let alone a culture) together as in decades past. But is that a bad thing?

Probably all this musical dispersion is a reflection of our times, where everyone has more access to different forms of media in specialized compartments due to the proliferation of digital dissemination. (A prime example is the existence of thousands of stupid blogs like this produced by bone-heads that nobody wants to read.) While this sort of chaotic proliferation is probably positive in that it removes the center of gravity from corporations that have traditionally profited from turning everybody into lock-stepping robots, does it not stultify the potential of ground-generated "movements" of mass revolt? I dunno. I guess we'll see.

But I thought it might be fun to look back at some of last year's best releases (in whatever format), at least from my cramped and overwhelmed perspective. You might find something you like that you may have missed out on. And rather than list them all at once, I thought I'd dot them throughout the coming year, perhaps on the first anniversary of their release dates.

I enthusiastically invite any and everybody who would care to take the time to share any of their favorite albums from the recently deceased year - or any other year, for that matter. I would most happily put them up here in the lame hope of creating a little sub-community of shared obsession. Or not.

Stephen Malkmus and the Jicks:
Wig Out at Jagbags (January 7, 2014)




One of the first albums released in 2014 wound up being one of my favorites. Stephen Malkmus, I discovered, is the wise-ass genius behind the semi-legendary band Pavement, one of the great little-known postmodernist "alternative" bands of the 1990s. For the last decade or so, Malkmus has been producing albums with his own band, the Jicks, and in so doing, has been expanding his unique brand of encyclopedic pop brilliance to new and fascinating realms of bizarre, sarcastic beauty. There are a dozen solid songs on this puppy, each with its own unique aroma. Malkmus digs on Lewis Carroll-like whimsy in his lyrics, though he ultimately targets what he has always viewed as the bogus mythology of rock 'n' roll culture and the various incarnations of "cool."

The music is catchy as hell and fits its targets through inverting clichés, somewhat in the manner of Malkmus' most obvious forbear, the late Frank Zappa. Malkmus' music is post-everything, however, and sounds nothing like the stern modernism of Zappa's, even if he does favor odd time signatures and jumps. I absent-mindedly once described him as "a white Captain Beefheart" - forgetting momentarily that Beefheart was white! (Goes to show just how great Beefheart really was.) But Malkmus is white as in Wonder Bread, and he loves to twist that middle-American perspective until it is as upside-down as it actually seems to a truly conscious mind. So, depending on your perspective, these funny and imaginative songs have the potential to be your buddies throughout this year, as they were for me in the last one.

By the way, Nicole (teenage daughter) and I went to see them at the Granada last March. Not only were they spot-on marvelous, but I was pleased to notice that I was not the oldest-looking person in attendance. Enjoy!



"Lariat"
Only a chariot could carry it
Across this void

I wouldn’t jerry rig or candy coat your Latin kisses

You’re not what you aren’t
You aren’t what you’re not
You got what you want/You want what you got
People look great when they shave
Don’t they?

We lived on Tennyson and venison and The Grateful Dead
It was Mudhoney summer, Torch of Mystics, Double Bummer

You’re not what you aren’t
You aren’t what you’re not
You got what you want
You want what you got
Feels so great in the shade

A love like oxygen, so foxy then so terrific now
On a jape I’m returning
Bobby spinnin’ out
I was so messed up
You were drunk and high
Just a ramblin’ wreck
Comin’ off the breaks to see what was shaking

We grew up listening to the music from the best decade ever
Talkin’ about the A-D-Ds
We grew up listening to the music from the best decade ever



"Cinnamon and Lesbians"
Shanghaied in Oregon
Cinnamon and lesbians
The power lines revolt in time

I've been tripping my face off since breakfast
Taking in this windswept afternoon
Onward ye Christian sailors
You smooth-talking jack-off jailors
A one-stop shoplifter's narrow convenience

Life should be free
Take what you need

Raised in a numbers trailer
With grass-blowing funky neighbors
Come downtown cause we've got a cure for your headlice
We'll do it for free
Love it or leave




"Houston Hades"
I could see you fallin' in love
Every day people need love
With all their better halves
Do the math
Everybody needs it long enough to let it go

If Houston's Hades

For Houston ladies
With all those truck huggers
Gun luggers
Now you gotta have their babies
No.

This town, it's so impressive from a distance
Listen boy, I'm talkin' to you

Doo do do Doo do...

???
She's your queen most of the day
As for the other ones
It's not fun to harp on it
Everybody's got their days

If love is Hades
For all you Slim Shadies
It's no wonder he smashes guitars
Turn the stage into a cool crime scene

It sounds so impressive from a distance

Take it up a notch or two!

Doo do do Doo do...

Tearin' it away
Tearin' it away
Tearin' it away, hey
Tearin' it away
Tearin' it away
Tearin' it away, hey
Tearin' it away
Tearin' it away
??? falls apart


 
"Surreal Teenagers"

Want to share an album from 2014? Or any year? List of favorites? Hate mail? Just send it to:

peteywest@yahoo.com


 

Saturday, January 3, 2015

 

Leonard Cohen:
The Best of Leonard Cohen (January 1, 1975)

I don't think that most of us know Leonard Cohen well enough. This album is a wonderful introduction to some of his earliest songs. I first heard Cohen in Robert Altman’s McCabe and Mrs. Miller (1972). They made a great movie even more unforgettable. Two of those songs are here ("Sisters of Mercy," "Suzanne"), as they appeared on Cohen’s first album in 1967, Songs of Leonard Cohen.

By the time this collection was released, 40 years ago, Cohen had produced three more albums. Songs from a Room (1969) featured "Bird on a Wire," which I knew from the late, great Joe Cocker’s version on his Mad Dogs and Englishmen album. Cohen’s original is here. Songs of Love and Hate (1971) followed, and in 1974 came New Skin for the Old Ceremony.

All twelve of these songs are from these four albums, but it’s still a lot to take in at once. Cohen’s songs are strange, lonely poetry, almost modern-day Biblical parables. They don’t come to you all at once. They take a long while to sink in. Perhaps that’s why he’s never been that famous or popular, but now, at the age of 80, he is hailed as a living legend.

I'll make some commentary on these songs, but not yet. I don’t think I have travelled down deeply enough into them yet to have anything valuable to say. Or perhaps we'll find that they say all they need to say for themselves.

I did decide to print the lyrics of all twelve selections because they deserve it. I thought it would be nice to spend some time just living and coming to grips with these tales. Then we’ll talk. Please feel free to make any comments you like, though. (Sorry, Jeff Buckley fans, but "Hallellujah" isn't here - you can find it if you look, though.)

Of course, if you’re not interested, that’s fine too. I can do it myself.
 
"Bird On The Wire"

 
Like a bird on the wire,

like a drunk in a midnight choir

I have tried in my way to be free.

Like a worm on a hook,

like a knight from some old fashioned book

I have saved all my ribbons for thee.

If I, if I have been unkind,

I hope that you can just let it go by.

If I, if I have been untrue

I hope you know it was never to you.

Like a baby, stillborn,

like a beast with his horn

I have torn everyone who reached out for me.

But I swear by this song

and by all that I have done wrong

I will make it all up to thee.

I saw a beggar leaning on his wooden crutch,

he said to me, "You must not ask for so much."

And a pretty woman leaning in her darkened door,

she cried to me, "Hey, why not ask for more?"

Oh like a bird on the wire,

like a drunk in a midnight choir

I have tried in my way to be free.


"Chelsea Hotel #2"

I remember you well in the Chelsea Hotel,

you were talking so brave and so sweet,

giving me head on the unmade bed,

while the limousines wait in the street.

Those were the reasons and that was New York,

we were running for the money and the flesh.

And that was called love for the workers in song

probably still is for those of them left.

Ah but you got away, didn’t you babe,

you just turned your back on the crowd,

you got away, I never once heard you say,

I need you, I don’t need you,

I need you, I don’t need you

and all of that jiving around.

I remember you well in the Chelsea Hotel

you were famous, your heart was a legend.

You told me again you preferred handsome men

but for me you would make an exception.

And clenching your fist for the ones like us

who are oppressed by the figures of beauty,

you fixed yourself, you said, "Well never mind,

we are ugly but we have the music."

And then you got away, didn’t you babe...

I don’t mean to suggest that I loved you the best,

I can’t keep track of each fallen robin.

I remember you well in the Chelsea Hotel,

that’s all, I don’t even think of you that often.


"Famous Blue Raincoat"

It’s four in the morning, the end of December

I’m writing you now just to see if you’re better

New York is cold, but I like where I’m living

There’s music on Clinton Street all through the evening.

I hear that you’re building your little house deep in the desert

You’re living for nothing now, I hope you’re keeping some kind of record.

Yes, and Jane came by with a lock of your hair

She said that you gave it to her

That night that you planned to go clear

Did you ever go clear?

Ah, the last time we saw you you looked so much older

Your famous blue raincoat was torn at the shoulder

You’d been to the station to meet every train

And you came home without Lili Marlene

And you treated my woman to a flake of your life

And when she came back she was nobody’s wife.

Well I see you there with the rose in your teeth

One more thin gypsy thief

Well I see Jane’s awake --

She sends her regards.

And what can I tell you my brother, my killer

What can I possibly say?

I guess that I miss you, I guess I forgive you

I’m glad you stood in my way.

If you ever come by here, for Jane or for me

Your enemy is sleeping, and his woman is free.

Yes, and thanks, for the trouble you took from her eyes

I thought it was there for good so I never tried.

And Jane came by with a lock of your hair

She said that you gave it to her

That night that you planned to go clear --

Sincerely, L. Cohen
 



"Hey, That’s No Way To Say Goodbye"


I loved you in the morning, our kisses deep and warm,

your hair upon the pillow like a sleepy golden storm,

yes, many loved before us, I know that we are not new,

in city and in forest they smiled like me and you,

but now it’s come to distances and both of us must try,

your eyes are soft with sorrow,

Hey, that’s no way to say goodbye.

I’m not looking for another as I wander in my time,

walk me to the corner, our steps will always rhyme

you know my love goes with you as your love stays with me,

it’s just the way it changes, like the shoreline and the sea,

but let’s not talk of love or chains and things we can’t untie,

your eyes are soft with sorrow,

Hey, that’s no way to say goodbye.

I loved you in the morning, our kisses deep and warm,

your hair upon the pillow like a sleepy golden storm,

yes many loved before us, I know that we are not new,

in city and in forest they smiled like me and you,

but let’s not talk of love or chains and things we can’t untie,

your eyes are soft with sorrow,

Hey, that’s no way to say goodbye.


 
 
 


"Lady Midnight"


I came by myself to a very crowded place;

I was looking for someone who had lines in her face.

I found her there but she was past all concern;

I asked her to hold me, I said, "Lady, unfold me,"

but she scorned me and she told me

I was dead and I could never return.

Well, I argued all night like so many have before,

saying, "Whatever you give me, I seem to need so much more."

Then she pointed at me where I kneeled on her floor,

she said, "Don’t try to use me or slyly refuse me,

just win me or lose me,

it is this that the darkness is for."

I cried, "Oh, Lady Midnight, I fear that you grow old,

the stars eat your body and the wind makes you cold."

"If we cry now," she said, "it will just be ignored."

So I walked through the morning, sweet early morning,

I could hear my lady calling,

"You’ve won me, you’ve won me, my lord,

you’ve won me, you’ve won me, my lord,

yes, you’ve won me, you’ve won me, my lord,

ah, you’ve won me, you’ve won me, my lord,

ah, you’ve won me, you’ve won me, my lord."

 

"Last Year’s Man"


The rain falls down on last year’s man,

that’s a Jew’s harp on the table,

that’s a crayon in his hand.

And the corners of the blueprint are ruined since they rolled

far past the stems of thumbtacks

that still throw shadows on the wood.

And the skylight is like skin for a drum I’ll never mend

and all the rain falls down amen

on the works of last year’s man.

I met a lady, she was playing with her soldiers in the dark

oh one by one she had to tell them

that her name was Joan of Arc.

I was in that army, yes I stayed a little while;

I want to thank you, Joan of Arc,

for treating me so well.

And though I wear a uniform I was not born to fight;

all these wounded boys you lie beside,

goodnight, my friends, goodnight.

I came upon a wedding that old families had contrived;

Bethlehem the bridegroom,

Babylon the bride.

Great Babylon was naked, oh she stood there trembling for me,

and Bethlehem inflamed us both

like the shy one at some orgy.

And when we fell together all our flesh was like a veil

that I had to draw aside to see

the serpent eat its tail.

Some women wait for Jesus, and some women wait for Cain

so I hang upon my altar

and I voice my acts again.

And I take the one who finds me back to where it all began

when Jesus was the honeymoon

and Cain was just the man.

And we read from pleasant Bibles that are bound in blood and skin

that the wilderness is gathering

all its children back again.

The rain falls down on last year’s man,

an hour has gone by

and he has not moved his hand.

But everything will happen if he only gives the word;

the lovers will rise up

and the mountains touch the ground.

But the skylight is like skin for a drum I’ll never mend

and all the rain falls down amen

on the works of last year’s man.


"The Partisan"

When they poured across the border

I was cautioned to surrender,

this I could not do;

I took my gun and vanished.

I have changed my name so often,

I’ve lost my wife and children

but I have many friends,

and some of them are with me.

An old woman gave us shelter,

kept us hidden in the garret,

then the soldiers came;

she died without a whisper.

There were three of us this morning

I’m the only one this evening

but I must go on;

the frontiers are my prison.

Oh, the wind, the wind is blowing,

through the graves the wind is blowing,

freedom soon will come;

then we’ll come from the shadows.

Les Allemands e’taient chez moi, (The Germans were at my home)

ils me dirent, "Signe toi," (They said, "Sign yourself,")

mais je n’ai pas peur; (But I am not afraid)

j’ai repris mon arme. (I have retaken my weapon.)

J’ai change’ cent fois de nom, (I have changed names a hundred times)

j’ai perdu femme et enfants (I have lost wife and children)

mais j’ai tant d’amis; (But I have so many friends)

j’ai la France entie`re. (I have all of France)

Un vieil homme dans un grenier (An old man, in an attic)

pour la nuit nous a cache’, (Hid us for the night)

les Allemands l’ont pris; (The Germans captured him)

il est mort sans surprise. (He died without surprise.)

Oh, the wind, the wind is blowing,

through the graves the wind is blowing,

freedom soon will come;

then we’ll come from the shadows.


"Sisters Of Mercy"

Oh the sisters of mercy, they are not departed or gone.

They were waiting for me when I thought that I just can’t go on.

And they brought me their comfort and later they brought me this song.

Oh I hope you run into them, you who’ve been travelling so long.

Yes you who must leave everything that you cannot control.

It begins with your family, but soon it comes around to your soul.

Well I’ve been where you’re hanging, I think I can see how you’re pinned:

When you’re not feeling holy, your loneliness says that you’ve sinned.

Well they lay down beside me, I made my confession to them.

They touched both my eyes and I touched the dew on their hem.

If your life is a leaf that the seasons tear off and condemn

they will bind you with love that is graceful and green as a stem.

When I left they were sleeping, I hope you run into them soon.

Don’t turn on the lights, you can read their address by the moon.

And you won’t make me jealous if I hear that they sweetened your night:

We weren’t lovers like that and besides it would still be all right,

We weren’t lovers like that and besides it would still be all right.


"So Long Marianne"

Come over to the window, my little darling,

I’d like to try to read your palm.

I used to think I was some kind of Gypsy boy

before I let you take me home.

Now so long, Marianne, it’s time that we began

to laugh and cry and cry and laugh about it all again.

Well you know that I love to live with you,

but you make me forget so very much.

I forget to pray for the angels

and then the angels forget to pray for us.

Now so long, Marianne, it’s time that we began ...

We met when we were almost young

deep in the green lilac park.

You held on to me like I was a crucifix,

as we went kneeling through the dark.

Oh so long, Marianne, it’s time that we began ...

Your letters they all say that you’re beside me now.

Then why do I feel alone?

I’m standing on a ledge and your fine spider web

is fastening my ankle to a stone.

Now so long, Marianne, it’s time that we began ...

For now I need your hidden love.

I’m cold as a new razor blade.

You left when I told you I was curious,

I never said that I was brave.

Oh so long, Marianne, it’s time that we began ...

Oh, you are really such a pretty one.

I see you’ve gone and changed your name again.

And just when I climbed this whole mountainside,

to wash my eyelids in the rain!

Oh so long, Marianne, it’s time that we began ...


"Suzanne"

Suzanne takes you down to her place near the river

You can hear the boats go by

You can spend the night beside her

And you know that she’s half crazy

But that’s why you want to be there

And she feeds you tea and oranges

That come all the way from China

And just when you mean to tell her

That you have no love to give her

Then she gets you on her wavelength

And she lets the river answer

That you’ve always been her lover

And you want to travel with her

And you want to travel blind

And you know that she will trust you

For you’ve touched her perfect body with your mind.

And Jesus was a sailor

When he walked upon the water

And he spent a long time watching

From his lonely wooden tower

And when he knew for certain

Only drowning men could see him

He said "All men will be sailors then

Until the sea shall free them"

But he himself was broken

Long before the sky would open

Forsaken, almost human

He sank beneath your wisdom like a stone

And you want to travel with him

And you want to travel blind

And you think maybe you’ll trust him

For he’s touched your perfect body with his mind.

Now Suzanne takes your hand

And she leads you to the river

She is wearing rags and feathers

From Salvation Army counters

And the sun pours down like honey

On our lady of the harbour

And she shows you where to look

Among the garbage and the flowers

There are heroes in the seaweed

There are children in the morning

They are leaning out for love

And they will lean that way forever

While Suzanne holds the mirror

And you want to travel with her

And you want to travel blind

And you know that you can trust her

For she’s touched your perfect body with her mind.


"Take This Longing"

Many men have loved the bells

you fastened to the rein,

and everyone who wanted you

they found what they will always want again.

Your beauty lost to you yourself

just as it was lost to them.

Oh take this longing from my tongue,

whatever useless things these hands have done.

Let me see your beauty broken down

like you would do for one you love.

Your body like a searchlight

my poverty revealed,

I would like to try your charity

until you cry, "Now you must try my greed."

And everything depends upon

how near you sleep to me

Just take this longing from my tongue

all the lonely things my hands have done.

Let me see your beauty broken down

like you would do for one your love.

Hungry as an archway

through which the troops have passed,

I stand in ruins behind you,
with your winter clothes, your broken sandal straps.


I love to see you naked over there

especially from the back.

Oh take this longing from my tongue,

all the useless things my hands have done,
untie for me your hired blue gown,


like you would do for one that you love.

You’re faithful to the better man,

I’m afraid that he left.
So let me judge your love affair


in this very room where I have sentenced

mine to death.
I’ll even wear these old laurel leaves


that he’s shaken from his head.

Just take this longing from my tongue,

all the useless things my hands have done,

let me see your beauty broken down,

like you would do for one you love.

Like you would do for one you love.


"Who By Fire"

And who by fire, who by water,

who in the sunshine, who in the night time,

who by high ordeal, who by common trial,

who in your merry merry month of may,

who by very slow decay,

and who shall I say is calling?

And who in her lonely slip, who by barbiturate,

who in these realms of love, who by something blunt,

and who by avalanche, who by powder,

who for his greed, who for his hunger,

and who shall I say is calling?

And who by brave assent, who by accident,

who in solitude, who in this mirror,

who by his lady’s command, who by his own hand,

who in mortal chains, who in power,

and who shall I say is calling?

 



 




 


Friday, January 2, 2015

The Magic Mountain

by Thomas Mann (1924)


When we talk about the monuments of literary modernism, three titles stand out, towering above all the others. Three massive novels, in three different languages, emerged in the critical decade of the 1920s, all challenging the assumptions of both the style and content of the entire corpus of Western literature and the cultural assumptions upon which it rested. At the same time, each proposed, in its own unique and mind-boggling way, a new alternative, a pathway for perception, in the challenging, even incomprehensible face of a new world order.

James Joyce’s Ulysses (1922), Marcel Proust’s seven-volume A la recherche du temps purdu (In Search of Lost Time, published from 1913-1927) and Thomas Mann’s The Magic Mountain (Der Zauberberg, 1924) stand as a kind of trio of mind-boggling pyramids of literary summation and definition that still mark the definitive landscape of what would become the true boundary line of the modern era. (I leave out Joyce’s Finnegans Wake of 1939, since it seems situated at the other end of a boundary that challenges not only interpretation and meaning, but even human comprehensibility.)

These are the Big Three of the 20th century, folks, and if you really want to understand modern literature and culture, you’ve gotta eventually come to grips with them.

Now, that doesn’t mean that everybody has to read these books. I happen to know a lot of brilliant folks, and virtually no one I know has tackled them all. To be honest, at this point in history, even the most literary-loving among us can be put off by the sheer intimidation of these extraordinary volumes. They’re the kind of books that everybody seems to wish they had read, but nobody actually wants to read. And let’s face it - all three of these modern classics are difficult (not to mention time-consuming), and life is short. Free time is hard to come by these days, and many of us would prefer to read something short, funny and to the point.

But oh, my friends . . .if any books are worth the time and trouble to burrow down deep inside and lose yourself, these are the ones. These are the true adventures of the modern mind, traveling to the very limits of conceptual experience, and no other books of the modern era have more endless potential for payback for time invested. These books have helped shape and define us, even if we haven’t read them! They are our Homer, our Virgil, our Dante and Shakespeare. (Well, actually Shakespeare is our Shakespeare.) We are all missing so much if we do not delve into their depths - entire worlds of possibilities in the cognitive playing with reality. And believe it or not, all three are funny as hell.

I would say, however, to all my fellow voyagers of the literary life, if you do suffer from big-book, monster-modernist, hard-to-read, too-much-time intimidation, that you go ahead and grab hold of The Magic Mountain and jump right in. I promise, it makes a great winter’s read. And of these three monsters, it is by far the easiest and most fun to get through. Unlike Joyce, Mann writes in a simple, straight-forward style. And though 700 pages may seem like a lot, it’s nowhere near as off-putting as Proust’s 4000-plus.

No, The Magic Mountain is not a book to be afraid of, but rather it is one to savor. If you like dark - and I mean very dark humor (it is a comedy about disease and death, after all) and if you’re even the slightest bit interested in philosophy - or at least making fun of philosophy - this is a book for you.

So don’t worry - Mann’s masterpiece is not hard to read. That doesn’t mean it’s not hard as hell to understand!

See, the whole problem in a nutshell is that Thomas Mann is a royal smart-ass. The guy is brilliant, perceptive and funnier than a bag of nuts. His characters are insane. The situations are absolutely ridiculous. This is a book that is literally built out of irony. There’s really nothing even remotely like it I’ve ever read (though Don Quixote and Catch-22 come pretty close in terms of tone). It’s just so fucking bizarre that it leaves you scratching your head. What the hell is this guy trying to say?

Well, I’ve read it two or three times, and I’m still not sure. But that doesn’t mean that I won’t try to give you my interpretation here in these pages.

No, not all at once. I want you to read it with me as I go through it again. Put down your own comments as we go along. I’d welcome any help with trying to piece together the colossal puzzle that is The Magic Mountain.

Is there a moral? Is there a lesson? Are some of the characters right some of the time, and wrong in others? The whole book seems to be one huge mass of contradictions, and every interpretation seems to have its antithesis written right into the pages.

I’m not making this more attractive to anybody, am I?

Okay, let me just tell you a little about the premise.

The whole book centers around one character: "an ordinary young man" by the name of Hans Castorp. In German terms, the book is what is known as a bildungsroman, that is a story of education. (Or rather, perhaps, it’s a parody of a bildungsroman, since it’s terribly difficult to tell precisely what, or even if, Hans Castorp does learn.)

Hans Castorp is 24 years old, and he’s just finished getting his degree in engineering. He’s going to design ships. He’s fresh-faced, unexceptional and has very few strongly fixed opinions. He’s about to go to work for a local Hamburg company and begin his career, but he’s pretty tired after all of his exams, and he could use a rest. So somebody in his family suggests that Hans go and visit his cousin, Joachim Ziemssen, who is spending some time at a sanatorium high up in the Swiss Alps, in order to get over a little touch of TB so he can go off and join the army. Hans would probably benefit from a change of scenery, the air would do him good, and so off he goes on a three-week vacation.

He stays up there seven years.

This is one Magic Mountain! Like some bizarre "other-world" in a fairy tale, the Berghof Sanatorium, so far removed from the world of "flatlanders" below, seems to cast a spell over its inhabitants. This is a wholly different kind of place, completely removed from reality. It has its own rules, it’s filled with bizarre characters and curious events, and perhaps most importantly, time seems to behave differently up here.

In short, it’s a perfect place for "an ordinary young man" to sit and listen to intellectuals argue, to fall in love with a foreign lady, and to ponder the meaning of disease and death for what seems like an eternity. (Hey, it beats working building ships.)

The Magic Mountain is, above all things, an allegory. But an allegory of what?

Well, it seems, at least one one level, to be an allegory about the diseased world of the European capitalist bourgeoise before World War I. There are "guests" (all ill, of course), from all over the continent, and they bring their national prejudices and personal philosophies with them up there, where they can argue, and nothing really matters. (Meanwhile the world down below rolls steadily towards oblivion.)

But that’s just one level of looking at it. On a larger level, this is Hans Castorp’s story. And it seems like Mann is hinting that, in a way, this is Germany’s story as well. This is the story of an education, like I said before. Hans is up here in the clouds, far away from any practical demands. And he is here to listen, to experience, and most of all, to learn.

But what does he ultimately learn? That’s a little harder to say. But, in a way, this is kind of a sneaky a trick on Mann’s part. Because the real education to be had up on The Magic Mountain is our education. We experience what Hans experiences, so we learn what he learns. But do we agree with him about his conclusions? Are we supposed to? Or are we supposed to keep enough distance from him to be able to judge and criticize him? Just what the hell are we supposed to think, anyway?

I really can’t tell you from this level. You’ll have to come with me aboard the little narrow-gauge train that takes Hans Castorp to his destiny way up high on The Magic Mountain for yourselves. The only thing I can promise is that it will be worth the trip. We’ll have a lot to talk about while we’re up there - and perhaps even more when we finally come back down.

There is only one thing I think I can promise for certain, however. When we finally come back down, we will be different.

So if I’ve tickled your interest in taking part in this massive, grotesque and strange journey with me, go pick up the book. (I’ve got the Vintage International edition with the new English translation by John E. Woods, if that matters to you.)

The book is composed of seven chapters. (That’s a magic number in the book.) We’re going to start with Chapter 1.


Join me!

Notes on Chapter 1 will appear here soon!

- petey


 

Thursday, January 1, 2015



God


Okay, let’s start with an easy topic that we can all agree upon.
 
God (or "the gaseous vertebrate," as James Joyce once called him) has for long been a very important concept in the history of humankind. As a matter of fact, it has been one of the most important and key concepts for virtually all civilizations, although different cultures understand and express the basic concept differently. Of course, all these concepts are fundamentally incorrect except for yours. (Actually mine.)

What makes "God" such a big concept in human culture? Do you really have to ask? I mean, what could be bigger? (SuperGod?) Let’s look at it like this. If God exists, then He is the biggest, most important thing that there is, and without Him, we wouldn’t even be here having this discussion. On the other hand, if He doesn’t exist, then according to the previous statement, we really aren’t here having this discussion. That is, unless He doesn’t exist - which means He doesn’t need to, and everything is just fine without Him. But according to many philosophers and theologians, "God" is defined as "necessary existence." So that by definition, He has to exist, right? Then what’s there to argue about? Well, maybe there’s no such thing as "necessary existence." Hmm. Does that just leave "unnecessary existence?" Is that us? I’m not sure.

See why people have such a God-damned tough time about this concept? And they don’t just argue about the concept, they really get hot and steamed about it. Quite often they actually start wars and commit terrorist actions about it. (Talk about poor arguing skills!) What if, instead of the term "God," we used the term, "ultimate essence?" Can you see people going to wars about the correct definition of "essence?" I suspect they would probably get bored very quickly and go watch TV or something like that before the argument even started getting heated. Why is "God" such a hot button, anyway?

Might I humbly suggest that perhaps we - or at least very many of us - don’t have a very clear and consistent idea about what the concept of God actually means? (No, I didn’t mean you - I meant everybody else.) Why don’t we just have a little bit of a closer look at what the concept of "God" actually does mean? (Is there still anyone reading this? Thought not. Then, I’ll continue.)

Just what the hell is "God," anyway?

 
Oh, God. Okay, first we have to make a distinction between "God" and just "gods," don’t we? I mean, whatever they are, they aren’t the same thing, are they? Or are they? Couldn’t you, just in principle, have two Gods? In Zoroastrianism they do. Really.

In case you didn’t know, Zoroaster (also known as Zarathustra to some of his close friends), was the great prophet of what would become ancient Persia. Somewhere during the 1st millennium BCE (some say the 6th century, although others claim it was long before) Zoroaster came to the conclusion that there were two deities at constant war with each other in the universe. One of these Gods (or ahuras, as they called them) was good. I mean, really good. His name was Ahura Mazda, which means something like "Light of Wisdom," or "Wise Lord." Ahura Mazda (according to Zoroaster) was wholly good. He was uncreated, benevolent, wise, and the upholder of truth, justice and the American Way. (No, wait, that’s Superman.) Ah, but Ahura Mazda was the upholder of Asha: the sacred principle of truth and justice which was supposed to rule in the universe. (Think of "the Force," but without a dark side.)

Unfortunately, however, Ahura Mazda wasn’t alone in the universe. He had an evil enemy (this is getting good!). His name was Angra Mainyu (literally, "angry man," but generally translated as "Destructive Spirit"). He was a real bastard. He actually created death (asshole!) and was the embodiment of everything evil and nasty. He tempted men and made them do bad things like steal cattle, rape, kill and not pay their taxes. He also created evil demons to do his bidding.

Now, these two Gods, as you could well imagine, did not quite get along. According to Zoroaster, who wrote the Gathas (the sacred texts in the Avestan language), the universe was a mighty battlefield between Ahura Mazda (the force of Good) and Angra Mainyu (the force of Evil). Now, Angra Mainyu, was the embodiment of chaos, and so he absolutely hated Asha and everything else Ahura Mazda stood for. Each one of them acted through humankind, and eventually there would be this enormous war which Ahura Mazda was destined to win, evil would be vanquished, the dead would arise, and Angra Mainyu would be thrown into hell. Finally, the savior (the Saoshyant) would arrive and everybody would live forever and be happy.


Any of this sound familiar? 
 
You know, it’s kind of funny, but the ancient Hebrews had no concept of Satan or the devil until after they returned from their captivity in Babylon. Nor did they have any kind of eschatological (end of the world) doctrine or an idea of a Messiah. You see, Babylon was conquered by the Persians, who were really good to the Hebrews, and let them go back and rebuild Jerusalem and their Temple. You don’t think they brought any ideas back with them . . . nah, forget it, that’s silly.

Anyway, to get back to the main point, it seems like at some time, somewhere in ancient Persia, somebody believed that there were two Gods. Now, I know what you’re thinking: Pete, there’s a lot of theological disagreement about the relative ontological status between these two figures in the history of Zoroastrianism itself. And yes, you’re right. Some scholars believe that Ahura Mazda was prior and Angra Mainyu was a secondary force, along with Spenta Mainyu (the positive force), while Ahura himself may have either been an anthropomorphic figure or even possibly pantheistic, approximating the Indian concept of Brahman. Yeah, yeah, you’re right, Zoroastrianism was probably more fundamentally monotheistic than henotheistic.

But that still brings us back to the distinction between "God" (capital G) and "the gods (little g)."

Now nobody believes in "the gods" anymore, because they don’t have a capital G, right? (Yes, neo-paganists, but let’s ignore them for the moment.) In seems like way back in the old days, not just in Rome and Greece, but right there at the start of civilization, back in ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt (not to mention Canaan), everybody believed in "the gods." They were big news. As a matter of fact, do you know what the reason was, according to the Mesopotamians, that people were created? It was because "the gods" didn’t want to work, so they made humans to grow their food for them and feed them. That’s a fact! And there were a bunch of them, too. Lazy bastards.

Anyway, this was one of the earliest - if not the earliest kinds of theism. What is theism? Well, if you look it up, then formally, theism actually means the belief in one and only one God. So I guess all the polytheists weren’t theists after all. (This is getting confusing.) All we know for sure about the polytheists is that they were wrong. For hundreds of centuries. Just dead wrong.

Let’s take a closer look at polytheism for just a moment.

Polytheism: the more the merrier!


Ancient humans, especially in the new urban-oriented parts of the world known as "civilized" seem to have a very complicated view of the divine. And who could blame them? There was so much going on - there had to be a different god for everything!

Just take Mesopotamia, for instance. Now this is the oldest religion in written history. (We have to guess what neolithic religions were like from watching westerns and Tarzan movies.) Mesopotamian religion had over 2,000 gods! You have to pray to (and feed) every single one of these fuckers? Talk about religious guilt! I mean, somebody’s always going to be mad at you.

Now, before we start getting overwhelmed, we have to remember that Mesopotamia was made up of lots and lots of medium to large-sized cities. And each of these cities had its own patron god. So you weren’t necessarily bound to worship all of them. As a matter of fact, since these cities usually seemed to be fighting one another, you probably weren’t even supposed to like all of them.

Still, there were all kinds of individual gods. There were the really big gods: Anu - god of the sky, Enlil - god of the wind, Enki - god of the earth, and Ninhursag - the goddess of gettin’ it on! Then there were house gods, market gods, rain gods, mud gods. You name it, Mesopotamia had a god for it.

Every now and then in Mesopotamia, an empire would come along. And so the patron god(s) of the conquering power would get quite a bit more important, a little big for their britches, so to say. The first really big empire was founded by Sargon of Akkad around 2335 BCE. Sargon was the first person they ever called "the Great." (Before that, the best a ruler could be was "Adequate".) Sargon advanced his own gods, and even put his daughter in charge of the priesthood and the Holy Prostitutes of the goddess Innana (not everything in ancient religion was bad). Then came the Assyrians, the Babylonians, and so on and so forth. Each wave of new conquerors had their own special deities.

Take the Babylonian Empire. Please. Their big patron god was named Marduk. His claim to fame was that he had defeated Tiamat (another chaos monster), and created the world out of her body. (Why not?) And the cool thing was that every new year, all the people would get together with the priests and act the whole thing out under the direction of the priests. We still have copies of the ceremony - it was called the Enuma Elis. And the major difference between their new year and our new year, is that if they didn’t perform this ceremony just right, creation couldn’t start over again, and there couldn’t be a new year at all. Everything would just disappear! (Talk about being part of something important . . . now that’s a holiday you can’t just blow off.)

Where am I going with all this? Okay, I guess I’m trying to make a few main points here. First, early civilized humans felt that life was really complicated, and that there were a lot of competing powers at work in the world, and since people tended to see these forces in kind of an anthropomorphic manner (which, come on, is really only natural - didn’t Woody Allen say, "I’ve got to model myself on someone!"), they really felt like they had to put forth a lot of effort to get these forces to work right for them. Everybody around them believed in the same things, especially the priests and the king, essentially anybody you’d want to be seen sharing a cocktail with. There weren’t any scientists around (plenty of astrologers, though) to say that this was all bullshit. All this stuff made sense to these people. And hey, it worked! The year started over, didn’t it?

You see, a lot of people think that ancient people believed in gods because they were ignorant and superstitious, but that’s just being snooty. Within their frame of reference - which, when you think of it, was quite broader than the people in the preceding 100,000 years or so - the idea of the gods wasn’t just an explanation for why things happened. They provided a way for folks to express the meaning of life in a really important way, and to stay involved. Hey, you weren’t just a wheel-maker or a cuneiform instructor. You helped keep the universe alive! And that’s really important.

Many people who are critical of religion, I think, tend to look at it from a place of superiority. Do you really think you could have done better? You think you could have built the first civilization? Seems to me that they pulled off a pretty remarkable feat. And people aren’t going to go to all this trouble to build cities and empires, erect pyramids, create literature, make art, etc., just to make a living. Hell, it had to have been a lot easier just sitting around in the trees, eating fruit and bugs.

No, people went to the trouble to do all of this magnificent work, creating ziggurats, palaces and temples because they felt inspired. They were part of something bigger. It lifted everybody up out of the world of the ordinary and placed them right there in the center of the universe, helping out the gods, keeping the stars burning, making the sun go ‘round, causing the crops to grow. Why, you were somebody. And so was everybody else. Everyone had their place, did their job, made their sacrifices, conducted their rituals, and the city and the empire and the world and the cosmos, could all go about their business.

That’s another great thing about these olden-olden times. I mentioned astrology a moment ago, but this was really something important to the Mesopotamians. You see, the way they looked at it, there was the cosmos. That’s where the stars and the moon were, the place where the really big gods hung out. That was the Macrocosm. And the city, which was the earthly home of the gods, was based upon it, even designed around it. That was the Mesocosm. On earth as it is in heaven. And the Microcosm? Hey, that was you, buddy. You mattered. Maybe not as much as the priest or the king, but you mattered. You were part of a great whole, something much bigger than yourself, the biggest thing imaginable, really.

And that, my friends, is what we call . . . a sense of transcendence.

Wow.

Yeah, it was a lot of work, yeah it was a stratified society. But you had an important function. And the festivals were really great. They drank beer and everything! Sure, there were wars. There still are. But at least things made sense. You knew what to do and why you did what you did. How many people can say that today?

Now, I’m not arguing that these Mesopotamian (or Egyptian) folks were better off than we are, nor do I think we should go back to those crazy days. To be honest, life has to have been a mixed bag back then. But isn’t it always?

What I’m saying is that polytheistic religion wasn’t just something that people used to explain a world that they couldn’t scientifically understand. We sometimes look at it that way because science is so centrally important to our culture. No, it was a whole way of life, a way of living, a way of looking at things organically, something that intimately involved you and your whole family with the destiny of mankind and even with the gods above.

Religion is complicated, and it satisfies all kinds of needs. And early civilization was very complicated, and people had to be creative. They were making this stuff up as they went along, remember. It was no day at the beach.

You know, the more you think about it, the more amazing it is just what people accomplished in the early millennia of civilization. They really needed all the spiritual resources they could get. That’s why, I think, that those prophets and priests in the Bible had so much trouble trying to get their people to worship just one god.

Just one god? Where the hell did that idea come from?

Henotheism: a new word for some folks!


Actually, most of those people that you read about in the Bible weren’t monotheists. Most Biblical and archaeological scholars agree that the Hebrews really didn’t commit to the idea of there being one, and only one God until some time after they got back from their forced exile in Babylon. (Remember, the Persians let them come back?)

What am I talking about? Okay, look at it for a moment. Look, for example at the Ten Commandments. What’s the first one? "Thou shalt have no other god before me." No other god? Well, why even bring it up if there weren’t other gods? Of course there were other gods. There were gods everywhere!

Remember we said that the cities in Mesopotamia each had their own patron deity? Well, that was true with nations, kingdoms, and empires as well. Babylon, as we noted, had Marduk. In the Levant, or what we call the Middle East today, one of the big local gods was named Baal. Every nation had its own patron god. In Moab, they worshipped Chemosh. In Edom, Qaus. And both of these gods were members of the Canaanite pantheon that was headed by the king god of all gods and humanity: El. El was the top guy. And he was married to Asherah, often just known as "the Goddess."

Guess who else was in that pantheon. I’ll give you a hint. Sometimes the Bible calls him Elohim. And what does "Elohim" mean? It means "the sons of El."

My word!

Well, who then was . . . Yahweh?

Okay, this is all going to get a bit technical and confused here. You see, scholars disagree about just who wrote the different parts of the Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament), and just where, when and why it was written. Now, I don’t want to get too deep into this whole subject right here, but in the Torah (or the Pentateuch) - that is the first five books of the Bible, known to Jews as "the Law" - there are at least two distinct ancient narratives that have been stitched together. And sometimes they tell the same stories with different details (and some different facts). Biblical scholars have known about this for nearly 200 years, by the way.

One of these writers, who is believed to have lived in the southern kingdom of Judah, refers to God as Yahweh (or actually the Hebrew tetragrammaton "YHWH." )This is known as the "Jahwist source," or J, for short. Another writer, with a completely different writing style comes from the northern kingdom of Israel, and he (or she?) refers to God as "Elohim." This is known as the "Elohist source," or E.

There are at least two more narrative layers stitched together to make up the Torah, at least according to what is called the "Documentary Hypothesis." A third writer is known as the Deuteronomist (or D). This writer composed the entire book of - you guessed it - Deuteronomy. And finally, there is a fourth layer that some scholars think came last, though some put it earlier, and that is known a P, or the "Priestly narrative," written by one or more members of that part of the ancient Hebrew community.

Sometime either during the Babylonian exile, or just after, all these layers were pieced together by a Redactor (R) to create the Torah we know today. Many believe this was done by the Biblical character known as Ezra, who lived in the 5th century BCE, and is depicted as reading the Torah - for the first time! - to the people who had returned to Jerusalem. I suppose we shall never know for sure.

Well, now that I’ve told you more than you want to know, let’s go back to the first two sources I mentioned: J and E.

Now, Elohim ("sons of El") could just be a general term for a divinity, but E seems to be referring to a particular one. But even E switches over to the name "Yahweh" after this god reveals himself to Noah through the burning bush.

So once again, who is this Yahweh, and where did he come from? "Yahweh" means, literally, "I am who I am," so this doesn’t really tell us anything. Many scholars believe that this god came from the south, and in the earliest narratives of the Bible he is seen primarily as a warrior god.

Wherever he came from, and however he got there, though, one thing is for certain. At some point, he was adopted as the "official" god of the state of Israel.

Let’s get back to that word: "henotheism". What it means is, "the belief in and worship of a single God while accepting the existence or possible existence of other deities that may also be worshipped." And for a very long time, that was exactly the situation in ancient Israel. People worshipped Yahweh, but they also worshipped Baal and Asherah, and no telling how many other deities.

So how and when did the Hebrews become "monotheistic?"

The Biblical history, especially from the Deuteronomist (who was probably writing during the Exile) continually stresses the conflicts between Yahweh and some of the Israeli kings who allowed people to worship other gods. Tales of ancient prophets like Elijah attack Baal-worshipping for example. You see, according to the Covenant (contract) that Yahweh made with the Hebrew people, he was supposed to be their only god.

Scholars disagree on exactly when and how this happened. But a large number of them agree that it was part of the general theology that was developed by priests and prophets during the Exile to explain the conquest of Jerusalem by Babylon. Yahweh had allowed his people to be defeated because they had disobeyed, and were continually worshipping other gods.

Notice that even here, no one is claiming the Yahweh is the only god there is. They are just saying that he is the only one that Israel is supposed to worship. So just when and how did this desert god who was the patron deity of this small nation of people become transformed into the one and only, true and almighty, universal God of all being, without any peers? Good question.

Hebrew monotheism


Biblical scholars and archaeologists pretty much agree that even by the time of the Babylonian conquest of Jerusalem in 597 BCE, even the most advanced citizens of Israel were at best "monolatrists." That is, they worshipped only one god, even though they accepted the existence of others. How does "monolatrism" differ from "henotheism?" Good question. While the good, old-fashioned henotheism lets you worship other gods along with your main God, monolatrism don’t. Not even a little bit. You dance with the one who brung ya. Period.

A number of priests and prophets, especially after the destruction of the northern kingdom of Israel in 722 BCE by Assyria, had been pushing for worshipping Yahweh alone. By this time, all that was left of the Israeli nation is the small Kingdom of Judea in the south, with its Temple and royal court in Jerusalem. After the Babylonian smackdown, just about everyone who was anyone in Jerusalem got carted away to far-off places in the Empire.

This was very disheartening, as you can well imagine. Not only had Israel’s god let them get defeated, but he let his own Temple be destroyed. All worship in Jerusalem centered around the Temple - as a matter of fact, since the time of the Deuteronomist reforms, it was the only place you were allowed to make sacrifices. Now what?

It seems to us like the Israeli religion should have crumbled and fell apart during the heart-wrenching years of exile. But, strangely, it didn’t. Instead, seemingly against all odds, thousands of miles from home, with nothing to go back to, the religion of the Hebrews not only held them together as a people, but it began to grow, philosophically and ethically, into what would eventually be known as modern Judaism. By the time Persia conquered Babylon and allowed the exiles to start coming home and rebuild their Temple - or pretty soon after - it was fairly well established in the people’s minds that not only was their god the god, he was the only god. From now on He would be God - with a capital G!

Now, to really tell the story of this transformation and to tell it well, you really have to take the time to produce all the Biblical and archaeological evidence available, and I just don’t have the time, space or scholarly equipment to do it a fair job here. Like with just about everything else, the experts disagree, and there is no really strong, established timeline or chronicle of events and ideas. But it is pretty much agreed that the notion of Israel’s god being the "one God" of all the nations and even the entire universe, was developed and pushed by certain prophets and priests in the exile itself.

Many Biblical scholars believe that this is when the famous first book of Genesis, with the extraordinary creation story we all know story was written. This all-powerful deity didn’t need to fight a war against a chaos monster like Tiamat to bring the earth and its creatures into being. All He had to do was say, "Let there be . . .", and bam! it was done! This was a God that existed completely outside of Nature itself, He wasn’t an incarnation of it like the old gods. This God was completely transcendent of all ordinary being, which was in fact, his "creation."

This was an enormous conceptual jump to a bold new concept of deity. But the Israelis made it. In the end, this was their genius, and their timeless gift to the civilizations not only of the Near East, but eventually, of the entire Western world. This was the glorious and transcendent vision of God that would be developed by Rabbinical Judaism and would be inherited by Christianity, and later, Islam.

Meanwhile, in ancient Greece . . .
 
The Greeks of the 6th century BCE were polytheists, pretty similar in nature to the Mesopotamians long before them. They even still had some of the same gods, although their names had changed. Greece, of course, had its own mythological traditions, and some pretty snazzy writers as well (Homer, Hesiod . . . not bad for a literary start.) Unlike the Israelis, the Greeks would never have a really big religious revolution.

But starting about the same time that the Hebrews were undergoing their radical reform, beginning in their exile, some smart Greeks, first in Asia Minor and Italy, and then finally in Athens, were working up an exciting new project in human thought: they called it "philosophy!"

The pre-Socratics


Once again, this is a whole story in itself, and I’m eventually going to tell it. But here we’ve got to cut to the chase. The first Greek philosophers are called the pre-Socratics because they came before Socrates. Now, of course they didn’t know that they came before Socrates, or that Socrates would eventually come along, so they may not have bothered to philosophize at all. But despite all their different theories about reality - and there were a bunch! - the pre-Socratics were all pretty much concerned with explaining what everything was, how it got here and how it worked. And they were doing it without any reference to gods or mythology at all - now that was different!

Hence, these early Greek thinkers are the ones who not only introduced the idea of free speculative philosophy into the Western world, but they introduced the very notion of science itself into the mix of civilization. To say that we owe a lot to the Greeks is an incredible understatement. Art, literature, architecture, Mediterranean cuisine, you name it. But for now - at least for as far as the concept of "God" goes - I’m going to say that philosophy was the most important.

The pre-Socratics never came up with the idea of God. They did come up with the idea of "the One", though, which was pretty close. Actually, all their arguments kind of cancelled each other out, and eventually they reached pretty much a dead end. But their early cogitations did not go to waste, however. Aside from all the various merits that their philosophies had, it’s pretty much agreed - historically, that is - that their greatest achievement was the impact upon the Big Three of Greek philosophy . . .

Socrates, Plato and Aristotle


Now, I plan to spend a lot of time writing about all three of these guys in a lot more detail, so don’t get too upset if I just jump on some main themes here. (Don’t worry, we’ll eventually get to all the technical questions about Greek philosophy that everyone’s dying to hear.)

Socrates was an Athenian. And when he was young, he got interested in philosophy, and he wanted to learn everything, but he found all the pre-Socratics’ arguments conflicting and confusing. He was just about to give up, when he heard about a new guy in town named Anaxagoras. See, Socrates heard that Anaxagoras had claimed that "mind" (Greek: nous) had started everything going. This excited Socrates because he figured that if "mind" was ordering everything, it would not only order it for the best, but it would be rational, and therefore understandable. One he got Anaxagoras’ book home, however, he discovered that the philosopher just used the idea of "mind" to kick things off, then he went off on physical speculations about the world like everyone else.

Disappointed, Socrates decided that neither Anaxagoras, nor any of the other philosophers, knew anything. So he started walking around Athens asking people if they knew anything.

Socrates was really more interested in ethics than he was in physics, actually, so he mostly asked people questions about virtue. Questions like: What is justice? What is courage? Beauty? Friendship? Piety? Wisdom? And all the Athenians, who thought they knew everything, would tell him. But Socrates wasn’t easily satisfied, and it wasn’t hard for him to find lots of big gaping holes in their answers, which he would quickly point out to them and ask them to start over again. Eventually, he would do this until the person he was talking to got completely confused and realized that he didn’t really know what he was talking about, and looked like a complete idiot. Socrates soon concluded that nobody knew anything, and that he himself (Socrates) was the wisest man alive because at least he knew he didn’t know anything!

Socrates kept on doing this until the Athenians eventually put him to death.

But one of his followers, a kid named Plato, got really inspired by what Socrates was doing. You see, Socrates wasn’t just looking for an answer of this kind of thing or that kind of thing - he was looking for a universal definition. In other words, if somebody could actually answer a question like What is justice? or What is beauty? in a way that it covered every individual instance of justice or beauty, then you would actually have real knowledge - that is, knowledge that didn’t change.

Plato carried on Socrates’ project - though he wrote dialogues instead of bugging people on the street so he would live longer. And eventually Plato pushed Socrates’ ideas just about as far as they would go. Eventually, he came up with his famous Theory of Forms.

Okay, I know I can’t really get into this whole massive theory right here. We’ll talk about all this later, I promise. But to break it down as simply as possible, Plato decided that these "universal definitions" that Socrates had been looking for were actually the highest reality of all. They were immortal, transcendent, non-material, universal Forms that existed before everything else did, and were the ultimate reality upon which everything else was imperfectly based. And they were all united together hierarchically under the one, great Idea of the Good.

Well, can you prove he was wrong?

Plato started the Academy, which was the first university in Europe. And here he taught mathematics, dialectic, and ultimately he taught about the Forms.

After Plato died, one of his best students, Aristotle, decided that Plato must have had it all wrong about the Forms. One big problem, among others, was that it was hard to say just what the Forms were, and perhaps more importantly, just what was their relationship to changing, physical, material reality?

Aristotle thought he fixed the problem by locating the Forms - or just form, to his way of thinking - inextricably bonded with matter in actual individual things. Then he went on to invent formal logic.

Now, eventually Aristotle got so carried away by logic that he got into some real problems. Take his Problem of Causation. Please. (Okay, I’ll stop.) Aristotle reasoned that everything that existed had a cause. But if you kept pushing this idea back far enough, you came to the question: what was the first cause that started everything else going? Aristotle reasoned that there had to be an Unmoved Mover that started the whole chain.

In other words, Aristotle decided there had to be a God.

Now, Aristotle’s God was a lot different from the God of the Hebrew prophets and priests. First of all, He didn’t really do anything - he just sat around and thought. Not only that but he only thought about thought. You couldn’t really pray to Him, you could just reason about Him. Basically, Aristotle’s God wasn’t so much of a real deity as he was a logical necessity.

Okay, so what do all these Greek philosophers have to do with the Judaic concept of "One God?" What did Socrates’ universal definitions, Plato’s Theory of Forms and Aristotle’s Unmoved Mover have to do with the great God Yahweh?

Funny you should ask.

The great Hebrew-Greek synthesis


Aristotle had students, too. And one day one of them went a little funny in the head, and he went and did a silly thing. He conquered the world. His name was Alexander. And just like Sargon, he had the same last name: "The Great."

One of the many places that Alexander conquered was ancient Israel and the city of Jerusalem. We’re all the way up to the 4th century BCE by now, so the new Judaic teachings had had a good couple of hundred years to sink in, and the people had them pretty much engrained in their culture and history. Greek polytheism didn’t rub off on them, and as for philosophy - well, to be honest, most of Alexander’s soldiers weren’t really up to snuff on the latest thinkings.

Alexander died in 323 BCE, but he left behind him an enormous empire that pretty much got split up between his generals. But a lot of Greeks migrated East and set up new cities. All these Greeks in the Near East eventually had quite an effect on the overall culture of all these areas, however. It is a process that historians call Hellenization, and arguably, it had just as much an effect upon the Greeks as the Greeks did on the Easterners. Once the dust had cleared, there was basically a whole new civilization built out of the blend. It was divided up politically, but it spread all the way from Italy to Persia, including the old kingdoms of Mesopotamia, Egypt, and even little Judea.

Nobody really knew what to call it. We call the whole shebang "The Hellenistic Era." And it lasted until the Romans came and conquered everything in the 1st century BCE.

A lot of Jews scattered and migrated in this period. And while they kept their religion and traditions intact, their mixing with the Greeks in many of these new cities opened them up to a lot of new, Western ideas. Like spanakopita and wine. And sometimes even a little philosophy.

Alexandria


One of the greatest of the new Greek Eastern cities was built in Egypt. It was called Alexandria. (Guess who named it?)

It was from Alexandria that one of Alexander’s general’s family, the Pltolemies, reigned their big cut of what was left of "the Great" one’s empire. They not only ruled Egypt, but also up into the Levant, including the little Kingdom of Judea. Now, fortunately for everybody, the Greeks weren’t like the Babylonians, and they basically just left the people in their territory alone to do whatever they wanted. They engaged with trade, and it wasn’t too long until Alexandria had an integrated economy with Jerusalem, and the Greeks and Jews got along pretty well. As a matter of fact, a lot of Jews moved to Alexandria, and well, cultures started to fuse.

The Hebrew Bible got translated into Greek in Alexandria. Known as the Septuagint, it introduced the idea of monotheism into many Greek minds for the first time. And for the Jews? They got their first taste of philosophy from the likes of Plato and Aristotle. (Mostly Plato).

Some Jews were so impressed with Plato that they concluded that he must have gotten his insights from reading the Bible. He hadn’t, of course, but the new ideas started working on both sides of the fence, and Alexandria was soon a virtual hotbed of percolating ideas. Alexandria eventually boasted the largest library in the world, and scholars and intellectuals set up shop all over the city.

Philo


One of my favorite guys of this era was a Hellenized Jewish philosopher called Philo of Alexandria. He lived from about 25 BCE to around 50 CE, and a lot of what he wrote would have a huge influence on the later founders of Greek Christianity.

Philo’s big goal was to try to harmonize the God of the Hebrew Bible with the principles of Greek philosophy. Philo was among many of the era who said that the Bible shouldn’t be interpreted literally. It was the expression of the experience of a people, and it spoke of philosophical truths in allegorical terms. Philo realized that if taken literally, the Bible could not be properly understood in all of its richness. Most importantly, it made the idea of God seem too anthropomorphic and foolish.

Philo used some of Plato’s ideas to help develop some novel and penetrating ideas about God, in the relatively new speculative science called "theology" (or the "logical" - as in Greek "logos" - study of God).

Now, of course the Rabbis had been theologizing about God for several centuries now, but the addition of the Greek ideas definitely brought some novel luster to the old subject.

For example, Philo identified the Greek philosophers’ vision of wisdom and reason - and especially Plato’s Idea of the Good - with the God of the Bible. The Bible couldn’t be taken as factual history. It was actually God’s Holy Wisdom coming alive in the imagination of the ancient Hebrew writers.

Philo’s philisophico-theological definition of God would be very influential in Western history down through the centuries. He rejected all the anthropomorphic descriptions of God’s doings as allegory meant to drive home divine wisdom. The "real God" was more like Plato’s Forms. He wasn’t material, he didn’t move or change. God didn’t exist in space or time at all. He was completely transcendent and was the ultimate cause of all material being.

But at the same time, Philo insisted that God was immanent - that is, He existed within the world as well. All people, in fact everything that existed, was a manifestation of God Himself. In Philo’s mind, there was a complete harmony with the transcendent idea of God and with His inner nature, which expressed itself as goodness and justice among people.

Whenever I hear fundamentalist ranters, whether they’re Christian, Muslim or Jewish, going on and on about what God "says" and "wants" and "tells them to do," I really wish I could sit down and share a little Philo with them. I think it might do us all some good.

Plotinus



Jumping ahead another century or so, there was another Greek philosopher in Egypt who would also have an extraordinary impact upon the thinking of Jews, Christians and Muslims throughout the centuries.

Plotinus was not Jewish, but pure Greek. His biggest influence was the philosophy of Plato, which through his interpretation and extension, he basically created a new conceptual model of theism that any of the Near Eastern religions could use.

Following Plato’s Idea of the Good, the really big thing for Plotinus was "the One." (We keep coming back to ‘the One.") Plotinus took the intuition of the unity of all Being, and reasoned that "the One" was the supreme reality of everything. It was completely transcendent and existed beyond all opposites, all categories, even beyond the concepts of "being" and "non-being."

But unlike Aristotle’s Unmoved Mover, who just sat around and thought about thinking, Plotinus’ "One" contained all potentialities, which it in turn "emanated" to create the entire system of reality that we see around us. This was a solution to the problem of Plato’s Forms, (Plotinus’ philosophy is known today as Neo-Platonism), as they could now be seen as the midway point between the completely transcendent "One" and the actual material things that they informed as further emanations.

I know this all sounds a bit abstract and complicated - and it is - but Plotinus was thinking on an entirely conceptual and rational basis. It would not take long for theists (especially Christians) to come along and adopt some of his ideas, replacing the logical idea of "the One" with the more accessible term, "God." Thinking about the Forms like this, they could be seen as the "ideas" in "God’s mind," which God merely had to think to form the reality we see around us and give it order, structure and a fully moral ground.

Personally, I think that this is a particularly beautiful and brilliant vision, even if it’s something that can’t be demonstrated or proved. Just as metaphor, I think it gives us a marvelous picture to explain the ultimately unexplainable in a way that makes sense to us - or at least some of us. At any rate, Plotinus’ thought would have a long and deep impression on the religious mind - especially those people inclined to mysticism.

Okay, Pete - where is all this leading?

I know, I could go on and on about the history of the concept of God in Western civilization right up to the present day. And I probably will at some point. But good lord, I’ve got to start wrapping this initial article up and bring it to some kind of meaningful conclusion before I find myself writing a very long book that nobody wants to read.

I guess there are two main points I want to make. The first is that the idea or concept of "God" is something far from simple and straightforward. We throw the term around constantly, and there’s this continual clash between the "religious" groups and the "atheist" groups, not to mention the ongoing religious warfare carried out by extremists and radicals. I really feel compelled to start injecting into the international dialogue the very real notion that "God" is something that can be meant or understood in many, many different ways! If someone asks me, "Do you believe in God?" my automatic reaction is just to stop and say, "Well, just what the hell do you mean by that?" Because "God" can (and does) mean everything from an imaginary little guy who makes a flower blossom to the most profound and elegant metaphor that rings out like a great work of art. Some definitions of God are ultimately aesthetic - they don’t have what we would scientifically call "truth value" at all. Neither does music - that doesn’t mean it doesn’t have a potential for extraordinarily rich human value. And arguing and fighting over what may be ultimately a beautiful metaphor for the unknowable certainly seems like a stupid waste of time to me.

The second point is that the definition of the word "God" is historically driven. It’s a fluid thing, and it changes constantly, from century to century, from cultural shift to cultural shift. It’s so broad, vast and loaded with possibilities that you’re never going to nail it down into something absolute and permanent. That’s doing it a fundamental disservice. Like all great concepts, the meaning of "God" evolves and changes over time, throughout the ages. And it always will. Hey, I’ve only gotten to the 3rd century CE. And I haven’t even begun to touch upon Eastern concepts of God as they appear in, say, India or China, and they are often radically, fundamentally different.

Look, I don’t want to make an ultimate statement or conclusion about "God" here - at least not yet (he-he!). All I’m looking to do at this point is to "up" the dialogue a little bit. We as people get so locked into yes/no, black/white, agonistic conflicts, be they religious, political, social or artistic. It’s just so beneath us. I mean, just look at the little part of the broad history of one topic that I’ve brought out here, and it’s easy to see that the world of our ideas is so multi-varied and beautifully malleable and nuanced that we just should rejoice and revel in that, keep our minds open and work to share all sorts of points of view and perspectives.

Right now, I know I’m just one guy writing a little bit about one thing, but if I can get some other folks to jump in and join me in this project, put in their own two cents, debate, discuss and yes, argue (rationally) like adults, wouldn’t that be one more step in a positive direction for the species?

For myself, at least, one of the greatest things about life is learning. It’s all about consciousness, baby. I get juiced on cognating! To me, that’s what actual transcendence really is: going from a state of not knowing to at least a state of imagining possibilities that you didn’t realize existed before.

Who’s right? Who’s wrong? Who knows? Maybe that’s not the point. Maybe the point is that we just get together and communicate with one another.

And hey - maybe, if there is a God, that’s exactly what He wants us to do.

I’ve heard crazier ideas. Much crazier.

To be continued . . .


petey